User talk:LordBiro
__TOC__ Leave Me A Message Hi, its Aleski, thanks for letting me know about the report a vandal page. Merci beacoup :) -- Aleski Hi...i was just wondering if you could maybe make an icon for me like you did for Gem. Just a hyperish once would be nice. You are awesome. Thanx! — [[User:Hypernecrofear|'Hypernecrofear']] :No, that was a one off. And yes, I am awesome. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 01:33, 27 June 2006 (CDT) ::Sorry LordBiro, I didn't mean to start a trend. :) -- 03:18, 27 June 2006 (CDT) :::Don't worry Gem, I can't even think of a good icon for myself! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:21, 27 June 2006 (CDT) ::::I can tell. Btw, you ARE a awesome! -- 03:22, 27 June 2006 (CDT) :::::Why thankyou, Gem, you're not bad yourself ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:25, 27 June 2006 (CDT) I know this is in response to old content, but I have to point out that "Who else thinks we should start GuildWiki is not a pipe?" has had me laughing for about 10 minutes now. -- Oblio :lol :) I'm glad you liked it! :D <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:17, 29 September 2006 (CDT) GuildWiki Policy I've messed with GuildWiki:Policy. I don't know if you still bother with this sort of thing, but I'm warning all the admins so as to get everyone on board. :) —Tanaric 18:45, 5 August 2006 (CDT) :Hey Tanaric, I do like to keep up with policy changes so thanks for letting me know! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:53, 6 August 2006 (CDT) For your consideration If you would be so kind to take a look at GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete. Thanks. -Gares 12:48, 21 August 2006 (CDT) Nightfall Guild Emblem Contest just wanted to make sure you got your entry in, must be postmarked by tomarrow. i want a Greater Icon, not another beaver. Nightfall Guild Emblem Contest. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 10:09, 23 August 2006 (CDT) :Hey Sarah, I doubt I'll be able to enter anything; my computer died yesterday. Equally this means I won't be able to do much/any work on the icons! :( <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT) ::oh no! poor thing. i hope your baby feels better soon. ;) --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 14:42, 23 August 2006 (CDT) :::Hehe, I love that you called it my baby, that's what I call it too. Don't go telling people that though, I have a reputation to maintain :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:13, 23 August 2006 (CDT) Builds discussion re: site policies You may already be aware of it, but if not can you take a look at the (long) discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds#theoretical_builds and voice your opinion? I'm asking several of the currently active admins to take a look. The issue, to me, is one of interpretation of site policies and practices. I was involved in the discussions earlier, so I cannot consider myself totally unbiased in any attempt to resolve it myself. --- Barek (talk • ) - 20:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT) :Hi Barek, I was aware of the discussion but I wasn't aware of the recent change in opinion brought on by xas' comments. Thanks for the heads up! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:10, 24 August 2006 (CDT) Totally unimportant layout issue It seems that your sig is messing up the table here. Any idea why? --Xeeron 04:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT) :I am still confused by your sig messing up that page: Take a look at the history please http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=GuildWiki:Old_votes&action=history it randomly inserts semicolons (which I did definitly not edit in) when I move a new vote there. Confused. --Xeeron 04:49, 13 September 2006 (CDT) ::Hey Xeeron, I have no idea why that's happening. I've altered my sig on that page to try to prevent it! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:11, 13 September 2006 (CDT) :::Looking at how the wikitext there is getting rendered as HTML, I'd say it's either someone else's HTML before that being messed up (perhaps unbalanced tags or improper nesting) or possibly just a bug. (MW has some fairly random bugs with its autoformatting combined with HTML in wikitext. MW can be set up to use wikipedia:tidy as a sort of crutch for this, but we're not using it here.) --Fyren 06:20, 13 September 2006 (CDT) Skill quick reference layout You have been taking part in the discussion earlier so I thought I might post to you among some others. I want this to be resolved pretty soon, so plese consider taking part in the discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills#Sub heading for quick reference box layout. -- (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2006 (CDT) Timestamp You're trying to get a custom-formatted timestamp? If so, I changed User:LordBiro/Timestamp so it works, but it must be substituted and not included. produces 2006-08-25 03:58. (Apparently UTC.) --Fyren 22:58, 25 August 2006 (CDT) :Good stuff Fyren, this is exactly what I was after. I wasn't aware that you could use the tag inside template calls! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:31, 26 August 2006 (CDT) User:84.69.228.214 Isn't 1 week a bit short? I know I overlengthen sometimes but isn't that doing to the oposite? :P — Skuld 18:55, 26 August 2006 (CDT) :No, it's not too short. If he does the same again he'll no doubt be banned longer by anyone else who notices, and if I ban him again it will be for a month. I don't see the point in banning an IP address for a ridiculous amount of time when they'll probably not be back anyway. If they can't vandalize right now I imagine they'd lose interest after waiting even an hour or two. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:32, 27 August 2006 (CDT) ::Doing a quick look at that IP address, it appears to be from some DSL user in the UK, I don't know about there but in Australia, if you're on DSL that chances are that your IP address changes regularly (Static IPs are only avaliable on some business plans or are an additional cost). So that person who did the vandalism gets a new IP in a few days time and someone else picks up 84.69.228.214 and finds they can't edit the GuildWiki. They also can't just create an account because it won't let them and probably couldn't be bothered working out how to email an admin and wait for the IP to be unblocked manually. So our anti-social vandal ends up winning again :( That's the big problem with banning an IP address, often a new person will get the address soon after. So I guess I agree with LordBiro there, if he/she comes back after a week doing the same thing, we can block for a longer period and with greater confidence that the IP "belongs" to that user. Shared IPs are another thing to think about though... --Xasxas256 05:58, 27 August 2006 (CDT) Here you go. --Fyren 06:23, 29 August 2006 (CDT) :Hey! What's wrong with my aim Fyren? :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:35, 29 August 2006 (CDT) ::Nothing. --Fyren 06:38, 29 August 2006 (CDT) :::Shhhhhh! Or I'll start blanking in a minute! :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:42, 29 August 2006 (CDT) ::::ROFL. You guys crack me up hehe. --Xeeron 06:44, 29 August 2006 (CDT) :::::I am now wearing my badge of poor aim with pride! Thanks Fyren :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:11, 29 August 2006 (CDT) Decision I saw that you were concerned about User:Timir111. I banned him for the continuation of blanking pages, lastly being my user page. Somehow, he found out I was the one that deleted an old tagged build and had to blank my page in order to ask me why I needed to delete the build. This user wasn't as naive as he lead on, I am guessing. How he knew enough to know the build was deleted, then sift through the delete logs to find out I was the one who deleted it, yet still does not have the knowledge to know not to blank or overwrite a whole article. Something didn't add up. -Gares 15:54, 30 August 2006 (CDT) :I've been monitoring his contributions recently and waiting for him to blank things again. Whether he is naive or not, he's blanked a lot of pages and I guess he's read the warning... since he blanked that too. He deserved to be banned and you did the right thing Gares :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:57, 30 August 2006 (CDT) Response to your comment on User talk:Gravewit This is in response to this comment. I'm keeping this out of Gravewit's page as it's off topic there. I'm not sure if you saw the full Stabber saga, but you are wrong about him not causing harm to the wiki. Long before his sockpuppetry was discovered he had already received several warnings (including an official arbitration) about his behavior on the wiki. Read what Tanaric wrote in the arbitration: he was fully in agreement with me about Stabber's behavior and contributions to the wiki. Stabber was more than a pain in the ass: he was actively harming the wiki with his drama. After his sockpuppetry was discovered, it was found that he had been using his socks to stage fights and dramatic exits without taking responsibility, and, in one instance, to double vote. His "Deldda Kcarc" identity was used almost solely to fight with Karlos and vandalize the wiki over a period of several days, leading to a series of blocks. All the while his "Stabber" persona kept up a demure front to attract sympathy. All this is well documented on the wiki. It's a completely unbelievable tale. You are maybe one of three people to still claim that his sockpuppetry was not proven. Also, if you read Xeeron's link, the community consensus about sock puppetry is clear. You are again a holdout here as nearly everyone wants socks banned on sight. Now, I've heard it said several times that Stabber's negatives were balanced by his contributions to the wiki, but that is a ridiculous equivocation. I myself was initially of that opinion, but then I spent an entire day going through Stabber's edit history, and the only conclusion I could reach was that this user was far too big for his breeches and a net negative to the wiki. And this was before his sockpuppetry was exposed. I know that everyone now wants to make this issue about me, and that's fine, but please don't exalt Stabber in the same breath that you damn me. 64.78.164.226 (a.k.a. F G) 64.78.164.226 10:19, 20 September 2006 (CDT) :Thanks FG. I've read this all before, both in your posts, in other people's posts and in the arbitration. :I appreciate that I am very likely in the minority with my view on Stabber. I think that she was a positive influence on the wiki, for the most part, and of course you are welcome to disagree with me. That's not to say I was a fan of Stabber, we butted heads occasionally, but she argued her point reasonably and I believed (and still believe) that her intention was only ever to accurately document Guild Wars as she thought best. :I really don't want to further discuss this issue here. I am aware of the facts and also of the speculation and my mind is made up. :I am also aware that I am in the minority with regard to my view on sockpuppets, but I think my point of view is entirely reasonable. If you don't agree with me then that's fine. I posted my views on Gravewit's talk page to reiterate that I personally see no immediate need, at present, to ban sock puppets or open proxies. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:51, 20 September 2006 (CDT) ::Just for the record, I want to reply to this sentence specifically: "I know that everyone now wants to make this issue about me, and that's fine, but please don't exalt Stabber in the same breath that you damn me." I don't know if this was aimed at me specifically, but when have I ever damned you? Or even spoken about you? I certainly don't want to make this issue "about you". <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:01, 20 September 2006 (CDT) Be afraid... Check out these animated GIFs... You are facing some serious competition, sir. :) --Karlos 00:42, 21 September 2006 (CDT) Old image revisions What do you think is best to do with this Image:Crystalline Sword.jpg? — Skuld 19:37, 21 September 2006 (CDT) :If someone uploads a completely new screenshot for something, the older things can go. If it's a modification of an older image, the older revisions should stay. Ideally, people would say "I took this screenshot" on the image page so we know for sure that it's a "new" image. --Fyren 20:36, 21 September 2006 (CDT) ::Bare minimum, all the "reverted to an earlier revision" entries could be purged. --Rainith 21:25, 21 September 2006 (CDT) :::I didn't see this conversation until after I deleted some of the images. I've purged all of the "Reverted to earlier" posts (other than the current one). I've kept the original upload of the current image, as well as the original upload of prior images. --- Barek (talk • ) - 22:52, 21 September 2006 (CDT) ::::I am opposed to deleting previous revisions of images because we have to be careful not to delete history, and because we cannot get images back if we delete them. Therefore I have a very "inclusionist" opinion on image retention, I think it's best to keep as much as possible. ::::The main reason we have for deleting images is to save on disk space. I'm not sure how much of a concern this is at the moment (I don't know if Gravewit has made any announcements) but I do think that focusing on unused images is a safer way of freeing up disk space. ::::In the instance of Image:Crystalline Sword.jpg I would not be opposed to deleting revisions if they did not have any relevance to the final image, but equally if it were left up to me I would not delete them. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:37, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :::::My opinnion is that all reverts should be deleted, but one copy of each different version of the image should be kept. Ie, if there is some reverting between 2-3 different versions, keep one one of each version and delete the rest. -- (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2006 (CDT) ::::::I think that's a difficult situation to get yourself into though. Sometimes it's not always clear which images you should remove. For example, Image:Dervish-icon.png has several versions before the final version, but I would certainly not advocate any of them being removed because they did play a part in the current design. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:10, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :::::::But why keep the rest? My screenshot are always the best ;) Signet of better image resolution —'├ Aratak ┤' 09:11, 22 September 2006 (CDT) ::::::::Biro you didn't understand me. I ment that we should delete all EXACT copies of an image version. If 2 users go into a revert war, only keep both versions once, not a million times. -- (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :Yeah, in that case I would not be opposed. But I think a situation where users perpetually re-upload images must be rare, unless you know otherwise :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:11, 22 September 2006 (CDT) ::It has happened on a few occasions. -- (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :::Well certainly in any instance where there are identical revisions of a file I would not see the harm in deleting some of them, provided care was taken. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:14, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :In the case of Image:Crystalline Sword.jpg, the image had several original uploads of the image (all of which I left in the history), but the history also contained six or seven tagged as "Reverted to earlier version" (or text along those lines) that were just caused by someone switching to an earlier revision, then back to a different revision. I deleted all of these from the history to clean it up; but left the original upload of each version in the history logs. :In the future, I can leave these reversions in the record history - those I really don't care about. But, as long as we have sufficient disk space, I believe that all original copies of each upload should be kept in history (not including vandalism / image abuse). --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:20, 22 September 2006 (CDT) ::Note: Someone has since also deleted an unused image that was a cropped version of one of the originally uploaded versions. Not sure who; but as the uncropped version was retained, that doesn't really concern me either. --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:22, 22 September 2006 (CDT) :::That's fine Barek, as Gem says, there's no point in having loads of items in the history that are identical copies. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:40, 22 September 2006 (CDT) Web design? Not sure who to ask, but at least you apparently have some interest in the tangentally related field of graphic design. Do much web design? I'm trying to move all the appearance-related aspects of the skill boxes out out of the templates (and out of the old HTML attributes) and into a stylesheet. I have no idea if the way I'm applying classes and defining them in the CSS is good or not. At best, I'm doing what makes sense to me and results in stuff looking like they did already. The CSS is at User:Fyren/monobook.css (put it in your user space, gamewikis.css if that's the skin you use) and some examples of things using it at GuildWiki talk:Sandbox/Skill box ias and GuildWiki:Sandbox/Symbiosis, if you're willing and able to help. --Fyren 08:54, 16 October 2006 (CDT) :Nesting tables is often messy, and CSS for tables is always going to be equally messy, but looking through what you've done so far it all makes sense. One thing that I've noticed (although I think this is just how all skill articles have worked for some time, and I hadn't noticed) is that there is no h2 in the template. I guess this is because of the way MediaWiki treats headlines in the TOC? Anyway, other than that it all looks good so far. There are a lot of rules in your CSS, but that's generally unavoidable when you have nested tables. I'll have another look later tonight if I'm a bit less busy and let you know if I can see anything that could be improved. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 10:49, 16 October 2006 (CDT) ::The header is fake (see div.fakeh2 in the CSS) since a real one would add a section edit link that would end up showing people the template source. That's probably bad and unexpected. Currently, there's a link that looks the same as a section edit, but people complained about it not being obvious how to edit skills details, so I moved it down to closer to the skill box and made the text "edit skill details" instead (and out of the fakeh2 div and into the skill box table). I was thinking about rewriting it to use divs instead of tables, but I didn't think it would make the CSS much different. --Fyren 11:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT) :::Yeah, I had a look at the CSS but I didn't realise it was because the edit link would go to the template. It makes sense I suppose. Overall I think that tables are used more than necessary on the GuildWiki. The progression table, however, is definitely not an instance of this. :::You could reformat the quick reference as an unordered list but, in honesty, I'm not sure if that would be worthwhile. It would make the wiki code look a lot cleaner, but you would have to use a lot of CSS in order to have it look like it does now. Maybe that means we should use a different layout, but I don't really think that that would be a straightforward change. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 14:12, 16 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Hi, you can see an example of what we can do with a CSS moding: http://www.gwiki.fr/wiki/index.php?title=Forme_de_brume, (sorry it's a french wiki, and sorry for my english ^^), I can give the source to make this, if you want to copy or modify the look. My skill template looks messy but I'm working on an Mediawiki extension to make it easy to edit (with forms). --Ouroboros 16:59, 16 October 2006 (CDT) :::::Hey Ouroboros, that looks pretty cool, although I do have to say that I prefer the simplicity of our skill box design. I can't view the wiki source on your wiki because of the permissions, but looking at the HTML source I can see that you use divs for the skill box which is really what I'd like to see us doing more of. :::::Ideally I'd like to see a situation where the skill box is a div, the progression table is a table and the quick reference is an unordered list since this would make the most sense from a semantics POV. But as far as the amount of work involved in achieving this goes I really wouldn't feel comfortable saying "this is the way it should be done", because I think that the quick reference in particular would be a nightmare to style. :::::I'll give it some more thought but, in honesty, I think the way we are doing things at the moment is adequate, and the changes Fyren is putting through are good. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:45, 16 October 2006 (CDT) gamewikis.org index I've been pretty frustrated with the current gamewikis.org index so I decided to make a new one. It caches the number of articles in each wiki seperately for 1 hour, so if it's not 100% accurate right now try it again a bit later :) Let me know what you think. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:47, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :I like it, the original had annoyed me for some time, but I usually bypass it, so kept forgetting to bring it up anywhere. Good job! I know that someone else (I think Tanaric) was working on a new gamewikis portal, using a wiki-styled layout. You might want to point him over to look at this as well. --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:12, 23 October 2006 (CDT) ::I talk to Tanaric occasionally over jabber/google talk and I think he's quite pleased with it. I thought Tanaric was more working on a meta wiki for gamewikis? I'm in favour of that as well! :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:34, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :::Aye. I love it. And, yes, I am working on a metawiki... hopefully we'll get it sometime soon. —Tanaric 16:51, 23 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Looks VERY nice. Good show, old bean. :) --Karlos 10:13, 24 October 2006 (CDT) :::I just noticed, you have the forums link, but no blog link. Any particular reason? --- Barek (talk • ) - 10:20, 24 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Probably because the blog is 1) totally unwiki and 2) rarely updated. But that's just a guess. —Tanaric 12:53, 24 October 2006 (CDT) :::::Well, I didn't mean to be too political by leaving off a link to the blog ;) But I was having trouble thinking of an icon that would be particularly blog-ish, and then I had a look at the blog to see if there was any inspiration there. I didn't find any :) :::::I think for a site that isn't almost entirely community run a blog would be suitable. Since we are almost entirely community run I don't think a blog is necessary; the forum does the job of propagating gamewikis information very well. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 17:53, 24 October 2006 (CDT) :Very nice. Do it! — Skuld 10:23, 24 October 2006 (CDT) ::Would it be possible to decrease the box/icon size so you don't have to scroll down? In Firefox if you've got a few tabs open there's a scroll bar in 1280x960. It'd be nice if even you didn't have to scroll, even in 1024x768. If you didn't want to decrease the box/icon size you could perhaps lay them out in two columns or maybe layed out like 2,1,2. ie: :GW OW : HW :NW Fo ::I dunno, just a thought, you know more about this stuff than me. --Xasxas256 04:48, 25 October 2006 (CDT) :::Don't put yourself down Xasxas! I tested it in 800x600 where the scroll bar is always there. I decided on a design that was big and friendly, so that's why I went with such big boxes and big text. :::One thing to bear in mind is that the page is dynamic. If another wiki is added then another box will appear (above the forum box) and the boxes will be sorted based on which wiki has the most articles. If I was to create a more rigid design that would allow the boxes to all display on 1024x768 (at present) then it would no doubt still overflow if we were to include a new wiki. That's why I don't think the 2,1,2 would necessarily solve the problem. :::That's my thinking at present anyway. :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 09:02, 25 October 2006 (CDT) Signatures How did you make your signature tiny like that? I have a need for smallness in the latter half of my signature... Thanks! BlastedtSee my main character! Basher Of The You! 16:53, 11 November 2006 (CST) :Blaestedt, could you please remove your main characters advertisement from your sig. If someone cares, they can find the link from your userpage. -- (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2006 (CST) Late Congrats I'm very late on this one yet I still seem to be the first! Congrats mate, you're very much so deserving of it ;) --Xasxas256 07:21, 25 November 2006 (CST) :Thanks Xasxas, although as I'm sure you can appreciate I wish that the circumstances were different. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:04, 25 November 2006 (CST) ::Yes you're probably right there but it'll be interesting to see how you do, you strike me as quite different to your predecessor. Tanaric had lots of good qualities and I had plenty of respect for him but I think he'd rubbed a few feathers the wrong way. On the other hand I'd say you're one of the most well liked people on the GuildWiki. That said it's not an easy role you're stepping into and like I'd imagine Tanaric probably found, you're may be called upon to give an opinion on something and whatever you choose is going to annoy someone. Nature of a tough job I guess but I think you'll do it well ;) --Xasxas256 08:21, 25 November 2006 (CST) ::Hmmm rerereading my post it sounds a bit like I'm saying Tanaric wasn't well liked which isn't at all what I was trying to say. You guys just seem a bit different is all, he's probably a bit more direct than you are LordBiro is all I was saying. :::Hehe, I know what you mean. I speak to Tanaric quite often and I think that while we have different approaches we generally have similar opinions. I think Tanaric's talk page is a testament to how well liked he is. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:43, 25 November 2006 (CST) ::::Heh heh I'm glad you know what I mean, we've had a couple of departures recently which is unfortunate but I'm curious to see how you go. I'm thinking it'll be something like an action movie blurb, ...a man with an unknown past, as old as time itself is out to avenge his friend. In his new role with more firepower than ever before, somebodies sure to get hurt. With an eye for icons and the other for destruction this cold hearted robot known to his enemies as The Birobot is out to strike a massive blow for the little guy against the powers that be. The Lord of Devastation is out for revenge, with an arsenal this massive who needs good aim? You can't run, you can't hide from Lord Biro, bureaucracy has never been this explosive! Coming this fall to a quality wiki near you... OK when I start writing posts like this it's probably time for me to go to bed! I'll catch you on the GWiki tomorrow mate, as long as it's still standing! And there's no need to tell me I'm crazy, I already know it, I consider it a good thing! ;) --Xasxas256 09:27, 25 November 2006 (CST) :::::Biro has absolutely no obligation to act as I did on the wiki. I wouldn't ask anybody to do that. As you've surmised, it's often a thankless job. —Tanaric 15:19, 25 November 2006 (CST) Categorising prof icons You beat me to half of them :p - you left the wrong comment though "redirecting" where actually you placed them into categories. (p.s. nice icons) — Biscuits (talk ) 13:01, 26 November 2006 (CST) :Hey Biscuits :) I didn't add any comment, I think MediaWiki just added those in by itself. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:20, 26 November 2006 (CST) :: Oh, OK ^ ^ — Biscuits (talk ) 13:25, 26 November 2006 (CST) Deleting unused images I've been submitting lists of images needing deletion to Skuld earlier, but I just realised that currently there are 1197 in the wiki and it would be a pain to go through them AND list the onews needing deletion for someone else to delete. Could we agree on a time some day this week when you temporarily make me an admin so I can use the deletion ability myself when I go through the list? Then you could demote me again after I'm ready with the task. On a side note: You might want to archive this talk page. ;) -- (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2006 (CST) :Hey Gem :) I'll get round to archiving this at some point. :I am a little hesitant to give temporary sysop powers. There are two reasons for this. I'm not aware of this being done before on the GuildWiki and I think that granting you temporary sysop priveleges sets a precedent that would be undemocratic (harking back to the time before GW:RFA when Gravewit decided who the sysops would be). :I would rather discuss the second reason with you off-wiki before I post it here, as I might not have all the facts. :I would appreciate any other contributors input on the subject of temporary sysop privileges. :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:54, 27 November 2006 (CST) ::If Gem have it, I want it to. ;) I think the reason you gave about precedent is a good one and I don't see the need for more reason not to give people temporary Sysop. Why grant it to one and not the other would be a pain to choose too.—'├ Aratak ┤' 19:12, 27 November 2006 (CST) :::Agreed. Although, I have no problem with someone starting a GW:RFA for Gem to put in place the framework to eventually grant him permanent access when it's decided more admins are needed. --- Barek (talk • ) - 19:19, 27 November 2006 (CST) ::::The category will be cleaned out before next Sunday. I have to ask, though, where Biro found the original of the Image:Warrior-pink.gif, considering I lack the mental capacity to figure out how to change it's color. I can remember the transitive closure procedure, but I can't change pink to black (sad really). — Gares 20:42, 27 November 2006 (CST) :::::No problem then if someone else is going to do the job. Honestly I'm really impressed that you took it like you did LordBiro, just as I had imagined. :) What comes to an RFA for me, I don't think I'm a suitable person to be an admin by the current guidelines (atleast now that I'm not too active) and I would probably reject the nomination. The only reason why I even dared to ask was the reason that I don't see adminship as any kind of status thing but only as a bunch of extra tools. (which I have really often hoped for as they would have eased my work here a lot) :::::Gares: I'll be checking the category on Sunday. ;) Please don't remove anything which might be usefull later on. -- (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2006 (CST) ::::::Gah! I knew that you were "back" Gem and I actually had everything ready to go to nominate you but got called out of the office and when I came back you'd written this. I think you'd make a great admin, maybe next time I see you online I'll bring it up. ::::::On a related note, our list of active admins has taken a bit of a hit of late. 's contributions have been a bit sporadic over the last month, doesn't have as much time for the GWiki as previously and Tanaric has retired recently. With Xeeron also calling it quits not long ago I figured that it'd be the perfect time to nominate Gem. It'd be nice to have someone else join me in limbo! --Xasxas256 03:21, 28 November 2006 (CST) :::::::Well, feel free to nominate me if you think I'm worth it, but you better convince me too. :) I really would like the admin tools so I could better help the wiki, but I fear I would also get more responsibility on stuf that I don't like to interfere with. I need to think about it more if someone really nominates me at some point. Untill that I'll just keep cotributing as usual. -- (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2006 (CST) I pity the fool Who hasn't been on the jibba-jabba in days. --Mr. T 08:14, 3 December 2006 (CST) :Hehe, sorry Fyren, a combination of computer problems and visiting my parents has meant I've only had access to a browser! I'm travelling back home tomorrow morning and I'll be online then :) Was there anything in particular you wanted to talk about? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 09:53, 3 December 2006 (CST) ::Not really. You had an open question and then disappeared before I answered. --Fyren 10:56, 3 December 2006 (CST) Settle this dispute please! It's between me, another person who agrees with me, Skuld and another person. Skuld has voted without testing demanding to know why it's better than another build to which I argue that he has no foundations on his argument since it sounds like he hasn't even looked at it in-game. The other person voted on this PvE build after testing it in PvP. I accuse them of 1) not testing it 2) changing it from tested to untested after the votes had already come through. Both these things are against the regulations of this site, I feel skuld may have an ego problem. The page with the proof: Build_talk:A/D_Disciple_of_Death. Yours, Sir On The Edge 16:44, 4 December 2006 (CST) :Hi Sir On The Edge, I've been reading through the talk page of the build in question, but unfortunately it's very late here (in the UK). I will continue reading it tomorrow morning and post my thoughts on this dispute then. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:23, 4 December 2006 (CST) ::I've found what you asked for and Have added it to the Disciple of Death page. G-night. Sir On The Edge 17:11, 5 December 2006 (CST) Jamie Eh heh. I dunno why I didn't think to ask you or Skuld to do it, and in retrospect, Tanaric wasn't the best choice for contact. I guess I was just responding to his post. Thanks for archiving it, though :) -Auron 00:49, 6 December 2006 (CST) :That's no problem Auron :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:53, 6 December 2006 (CST) Explorable Areas I'd like your opinion for a S&F template I created for Explorable Areas. Thanks. — Gares 15:36, 6 December 2006 (CST) Look at this mess Build:W/A Armored Assassin. Check out the page history and talk page. You got the beaucrat status, you get the fun stuff. I think I've handled for now, but if it gets any worse, someone else might want to step in. — Gares 09:49, 8 December 2006 (CST) :I'm reading through now, and it looks pretty... disappointing. Thanks for pointing this out Gares. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 14:00, 8 December 2006 (CST)